MovieChat Forums > The Negotiator (1998) Discussion > this has ALWAYS bothered me.... what abo...

this has ALWAYS bothered me.... what about you?

posted 18 years ago by rondine
26 replies | jump to latest

Am I the only person that was ever bothered by the fact that ALL of his friends, co-workers and everyone except his wife were all so quick to believe he did it?? Especially since the guy was like his best friend too! I mean, if someone accused one of my close friends, I would err on the side of incredulity- I mean, I would need some serious PROOF before comdemning him- or cussing him out like the wife of the victim- who prior to this was one of his friends too.

I mean, wtf?

[–] elshizzo 18 years ago

Ofcourse you'd trust that he didn't do it, but there was a ton of evidence against him. So much so that his lawyer begged him to cut a deal.

Not sure if I can remember all of it, but they found the money exacting the lost fund money in his house, they found the gun in the lake that was supposedly in his possession, and he was at the scene of the crime at the moment of the shooting. And lastly he would've had a motive to kill nate under the assumption that he had the stolen money and Nate was investigating who stole the money.

[–] elshizzo 18 years ago

Also, saying that his friends were so quick to believe it isn't true.

First off, his wife still believed him. And most of the other cops were atleast unsure of what happened, although the ones defending him turned out mostly to be the guilty ones ha. I don't think any of the cops immediately assume he was guilty, I didn't get that impression. The only person who it seemed really thought he was guilty was Nate's wife.

[–] rondine 18 years ago

all very good points--- however, there is the scene when Chris does the bluff & they all get pissed off & say they're angry because he made them *think* he was innocent- this presupposes the idea they thought he was guilty.

Also, the evidence was actually circumstantial because they only found gloves- but no proof HE'd been wearing them- the friggin' janitor couldn've tossed those in the lake! Plus the gun was only a stolen gun he had recovered- not even a gun he owned! and to top it all off, they had no proof at all that he opened any of those accts- having papers in your house can mean as little as a paper boy dropping something through the door slot- it's certainly not indicative of guilt.... but then this country has always had a prob with that- they tend to believe the worst. Even though the maxim of the law is "innocent until proven guilty" and that the burden of guilt/proof is completely on the prosecution. That's partially why he decided to take hostages- getting a fair trial isn't always easy.

[–] elshizzo 18 years ago

"all very good points--- however, there is the scene when Chris does the bluff & they all get pissed off & say they're angry because he made them *think* he was innocent- this presupposes the idea they thought he was guilty. "

Possibly, but I think when he took the hostages it changed their mind. Usually only a guilty person will try to do something crazy to avoid jail whereas an innocent person will go through the courts. The fact that he resorted to holding hostages instead of winning in court probably pissed them off and made them think he was probably guilty

[–] godlike93 16 years ago

What I always thought was a little funny was that when the cops show up and find him with his partner dead, he's inside the car leaning over him. Later the cops are like "we found the gun in the lake and gloves too explaining why there was no GSR on you.".

So, what they believe is that he walked up, shot his partner, ran over to the lake to dump the gun and gloves and then, what? Decided to cozy up next to his dead partner and listen to some tunes while waiting for some other cops so he could profess his innocence?

They'll believe he's smart enough the pull off a complicated embezzling scheme, but when it comes to knocking someone off they treat him like he's functionally retarded.

[–] rondine 16 years ago

all very true.

I try not to pick apart stories, but in this case the flaws are glaring, imho. For one reason, I really like the actors so it makes those annoying flaws that much more annoying.

[–] rondine 17 years ago

Dear Fraiser fan,

I totally agree, the David Morse character, Beck, seemed especially overly dramatic/cheesy when he was saying something like, "move it- we got an injured cop over here!" and it was such an immediate contrast to his behavior before- I would think a more likely reaction might've been some embarassement & silence over his mis-judging him. But then the Morse/Jackson characters seemed to have some issues before all this happened too- after all, one plans for seizure and the other for surrender so they were often at odds in their goals during negotiations.

are you a boxing fan? me too!

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Mykel_13 17 years ago

I dont think Beck was certain that Danny was guilty, i dont even think he was that concerned about it. I think the thing he cared about was that Danny had hostages and he saw Danny as a hostage-taker, therefore it was his job to get the hostages out unharmed, at any cost, even if that meant killing Danny Roman.

I am Jack's smirking revenge

[–] bon86 17 years ago

most off them didn't completly turn on him. they were unsure what to think. the one cop even came right out and asked him whats going. it takes a real friend to just come out and ask something like that in that kind sitution.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] rondine 17 years ago

The one guy with the toothpick (can't remember his name) would be an example of at least one dude that didn't rush to judgement.

[–] mindstamina3000 13 years ago

I dont think Beck was certain that Danny was guilty, i dont even think he was that concerned about it. I think the thing he cared about was that Danny had hostages and he saw Danny as a hostage-taker, therefore it was his job to get the hostages out unharmed, at any cost, even if that meant killing Danny Roman.

If Beck was his teammate and his friend then he would not resort to just want to kill Roman because he was a hostage taker. He would resort to want to kill Roman because he thought Roman already killed Nate and could kill Frost.

[–] spookyrat1 12 years ago

I think you're being overly harsh. Immediately before the scene you cite above, the Beck Character shows just that...pain and embarassment...when realising the extent and consequences of his misjudgment. In contrast there is a cut to the SWAT guy with the toothpick who earlier was stood down for refusing to take the shot at Roman. He's stoked to know that his moral stance has been totally vindicated.

I've never been bothered by the plot in this movie. It's fairly mainstream, but well directed and has a great cast.

[–] smoko 17 years ago

Yeah, if he was a white guy, they wouldn't have been so quick to accuse him.

[–] rondine 17 years ago

to be honest, I never even considered his race, sometimes when you're not racist, you can be too naive so I hadn't even thought about that. You may or may not be right- I only know that all his friends seemed too quick to rush to judgement.

[–] robinson62 16 years ago

Chicago cops are dirty for the most part. They turn on eachother just as fast as they cover for eachother.

[–] rondine 16 years ago

hmmm... I guess if you are correct that could be how someone got the idea for the screenplay. Either way, I think everyone should be PRESUMED innocent until they are proven guilty. But then I'm an idealist. :)

[–] Mannequin 16 years ago

The plot in this movie is so poor, that the only thing that's worse is when they're using sniper rifles with laser scopes that actually paint a laser on the target. It's so ridiculous! There are such things as laser rifle scopes. Instead of peering through the scope and seeing a crosshair, you see a laser. But never, for the life of God, does it actually cast a beam on to the person you're trying to kill.

Now THAT has always bothered me in movies. Hollywood getting facts wrong again. D'oh!

[–] tinterwebtim 16 years ago

It's called the willing suspension of disbelief. We, the audience, need to know that a sniper is ready to take a kill shot the whole time we are watching the action elsewhere without having to constantly cut back to shots through the scope. It adds tension to the scene without breaking the pace. It's movie shorthand, not movie screw up.

*When I was young, I wanted to be somebody. Now I realise I should have been more specific.*

[–] david1731048 16 years ago

Everyone had to be quick to blame him so as the audience had no way to tell which were the bad cops and which were not and had to keep guessing till the end. Plus if we wanna nitpick then lets face it, his own team would *never* have been placed in charge of that situation with one of their own officers, total conflict of interest, but hey, thats the movies for ya, it wouldn't have worked otherwise

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] rondine 16 years ago

see I agree with you too... it's a device, not a logical progression and some of us astute viewers notice.
I have a similar post on "The Negotiator" because I thought everyone thinking the friend they had worked with for so long was suddenly a murder seemed a bit contrived. You can check out that thread for a more in-depth discussion of it.

[–] patpatterson 13 years ago

I dont think they all believed he was guilty but there wasnt exactly anybody declaring "Ive known him for x years,hes a good guy,he cant have done this!".They didnt exactly show him a lot of support.If I was Danny I would not have wanted to work there again.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]